The New York Times, which we had criticized (FAIR Blog, 1/12/10, 1/13/10) for ignoring insurgent candidate Jonathan Tasini in its coverage of the New York Senate race, ran a substantial piece about his candidacy today (1/27/10). While the piece, by N.R. Kleinfield, had a somewhat wry tone as it stressed the “long shot” nature of Tasini’s bid, it also gave him space to outline his progressive policy positions and how they differ from those of incumbent Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.
Maybe Jonathan’s a longshot, but the Times article made him look kind of dismal. Given that Tasini sued the Times, I suppose it was too much to ask that they take him a little more seriously. But, still.
Is it really stretching the truth to say that Tasini is a “long shot?” Tasini got better coverage from the Times than Dennis Kucinich did when he ran for president. He certainly got more than he deserves, probably because of the lawsuit in question. To infer, as Dubro does, that Tasini is being punished for taking on the mighty Times is ridiculous. But given that Dubro and Tasini performed the old one-two combination on the National Writers Union, the organization they successively ran into the ground while furthering their “credentials,” it’s not surprising to see one of these pseudo-unionist charlatans defending the other. Just ask how many writers entitled to settlements under Tasini v. the Times actually received them. The answer is very few. Tasini may indeed look “dismal”–a state Dubro and he should know well after refusing to play hardball with publishers that weren’t the New York Times, or for failing to put the union’s resources toward organizing. But by all means, gents, cover each other’s flaccid, ineffectual asses.
For members of other unions, the past conflicts within the Writers’ Union generated a lot of heat & not much light.
I don’t know if Michael Anft’s critique of past NWU leaders is right or wrong. But his nasty, personalized tone is the kind of thing that keeps the labor movement from developing a culture of robust, open debate. If you think Tasini or Dubro’s policies were ineffective, then criticize the policies and no need to be falsely polite about it. But when I see an argument with that’s mainly ad hominem and personalized attacks, it makes me suspect that the writer doesn’t have much of a case on the substance.
I don’t think the NY Times’ piece is really giving him the coverage he deserves. It was published in the back of the paper and it feels more like some kind of “human interest” story, and not political coverage of a substantive candidacy. Just yesterday they had a front page piece about Ford and Gillibrand, and they again failed to even mention Tasini.